The Gandhara grave (or Swāt) culture emerges from ca. 1600 BC, and flourishes in Gandhara, Pakistan ca. 1500 BC to 500 BC (i.e. possibly up to the time of Pāṇini). Relevant finds, artifacts found primarily in graves, were distributed along the banks of the Swat and Dir rivers in the north, Taxila in the southeast, along the Gomal River to the south. The pottery finds show clear links with contemporary finds from southern Central Asia (BMAC) and the Iranian Plateau. Simply made terracotta figurines were buried with the pottery, and other items are decorated with simple dot designs. Horse remains were found in at least one burial. (God-Apes and Fossil Men is a book on Paleoanthropology in South Asia by Kenneth A.R. Kennedy. Ann Arbor, 2000).
The book is a detailed study of the history of South Asian Paleoanthropology and of the fossil record of prehistoric people in South Asia. The fifth chapter is about the prehistoric God-Apes of the Siwalik hills. Other chapters describe the fossil hominids of the Pleistocene. The Mesolithic skeletal record is also described, and the last chapters treat the Harappan civilization and the Megalith builders. In the centuries preceding the Gandhara culture, during the Early Harappan period (roughly 3200–2600 BCE), similarities in pottery, seals, figurines, ornaments etc. document intensive caravan trade between South Asia and Central Asia and the Iranian plateau. (Asko Parpola, Study of the Indus Script, May 2005 p. 2f)
The Date of the Vedas
The various attempts made to date Sanskrit texts (the Veda) are examined in the context that if the gveda (the earliest of the texts) is at least a millennium older than its commonly accepted date, then the possibility of Dravidian and/or Munda and/or unknown linguistic influences on Vedic Sanskrit being the result of the speakers of these languages intruding on an Indo-Aryan-speaking area after the other languages had already left, as opposed to vice versa, becomes a much more serious consideration. Moreover, the relationship between Vedic and Proto-Indo-European would need to be reconsidered, and any proposal associating the overland trajectory of the Indo-Aryans with the Andronovo culture, a southern Iranian route, or any Post-Harappan culture in the subcontinent, loses value. For these and other reasons, a much older date for the Veda is foundational to the Indigenous Aryanist position; if by contrast, the oldest strata of the gveda cannot be far removed from the conventionally accepted date of 1200 or 1500 B.C.E. , then the Indigenous Aryanist case loses cogency. The chapter examines the dating of Proto-Indo-European first, before going on to look at the dating of the Veda itself, paying special attention to astronomy and its bearing on Vedic chronology. The author concludes that none of the evidence presented so far in the book convincingly settles the debate, and that the only evidence that could do this with any degree of certainty would be the decipherment of the script from the Indus Valley civilization. (The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture, Bryant, Edwin Lecturer in Indology, Committee for the Study of Religion, Harvard University, 2001)
The Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (or BMAC, also known as the Oxus civilization) is the modern archaeological designation for a Bronze Age culture of Central Asia, dated to ca. 2200–1700 BC, located in present day Turkmenistan, northern Afghanistan, southern Uzbekistan and western Tajikistan, centered on the upper Amu Darya (Oxus). Its sites were discovered and named by the Soviet archaeologist Viktor Sarianidi (1976). Bactria was the Greek name for the area of Bactra (modern Balkh), in what is now northern Afghanistan, and Margiana was the Greek name for the Persian satrapy of Margu, the capital of which was Merv, in today's Turkmenistan.
Radiocarbon dating suggests dating the complex to the last century of the 3rd millennium and the first quarter of the 2nd millennium BC. Geographically, the Bactria-Margiana complex spans a wide area from southeastern Iran to Balochistan and Afghanistan. Possibly the archaeologically unexplored terrain of Baluchistan and Afghanistan holds the heartland of the complex (see Lamberg-Karlovsky 2002). BMAC materials such as seals have been found in the Indus civilisation, on the Iranian plateau, and in the Persian Gulf. The inhabitants of the BMAC were sedentary people who practised irrigation farming of wheat and barley. There has been interaction with the nomadic people of the contemporary Andronovo culture of the steppe to the north, as the findings of steppe pottery in the BMAC indicate. With their impressive material culture including monumental architecture, bronze tools, ceramics, horse chariots and jewellery of semiprecious stones, the complex exhibits many of the hallmarks of civilization.
The discovery of a single tiny stone seal with geometric markings from a BMAC site in Turkmenistan in 2001 led some to claim that the Bactria-Margiana complex had also developed writing, and thus may indeed be considered a literate civilization. It is not clear however if the markings represent a true writing system as opposed to isolated pictographs.V. Mair (2001) has shown that the Chinese-like signs are indeed parallel to Chinese inscriptions used some 2500 years later in Xinjiang. The tiny seal has been dislocated down from its original, much later layer. Nevertheless, the BMAC seals contain motifs and even material that are distinctive from seals of Syro-Anatolia, Mesopotamia, the Persian Gulf, showing they form a type not derived from any other region. Sarianidi himself advocates identifying the complex as Indo-Iranian, going as far as to identify evidence of proto-Zoroastrian objects and rituals. James P. Mallory argues
"The geographic location of the BMAC ... conforms, it is argued, with the historical situation of the Da(h)a and Parnoi mentioned in Greek and Latin sources, which have, in turn, been identified with the Dasas, Dasyus, and Panis of the Rig Veda who were defeated by the Vedic Arya." (EIEC, p. 73).
EIEC or Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture is an encyclopedia of Indo-European studies and the Proto-Indo-Europeans. The encyclopedia was edited by J. P. Mallory and Douglas Q. Adams and published in 1997 by Fitzroy Dearborn. Similarly, he argues that the design of the BMAC forts "matches the description of the fortified sites depicted in the Vedas" and mentions evidence for the presence of the soma-cult. The archaeological record is however inconclusive with regard to a migration of Indo-Aryans or Indo-Iranians to the BMAC from east i.e, India.
Moreover, cultural links between the BMAC and the Indus Valley can also be explained by reciprocal cultural influences uniting the two cultures, or by the transfer of luxury or commercial goods. (Fussman, G.; Kellens, J.; Francfort, H.-P.; Tremblay, X. 2005)
The book is a detailed study of the history of South Asian Paleoanthropology and of the fossil record of prehistoric people in South Asia. The fifth chapter is about the prehistoric God-Apes of the Siwalik hills. Other chapters describe the fossil hominids of the Pleistocene. The Mesolithic skeletal record is also described, and the last chapters treat the Harappan civilization and the Megalith builders. In the centuries preceding the Gandhara culture, during the Early Harappan period (roughly 3200–2600 BCE), similarities in pottery, seals, figurines, ornaments etc. document intensive caravan trade between South Asia and Central Asia and the Iranian plateau. (Asko Parpola, Study of the Indus Script, May 2005 p. 2f)
The Date of the Vedas
The various attempts made to date Sanskrit texts (the Veda) are examined in the context that if the gveda (the earliest of the texts) is at least a millennium older than its commonly accepted date, then the possibility of Dravidian and/or Munda and/or unknown linguistic influences on Vedic Sanskrit being the result of the speakers of these languages intruding on an Indo-Aryan-speaking area after the other languages had already left, as opposed to vice versa, becomes a much more serious consideration. Moreover, the relationship between Vedic and Proto-Indo-European would need to be reconsidered, and any proposal associating the overland trajectory of the Indo-Aryans with the Andronovo culture, a southern Iranian route, or any Post-Harappan culture in the subcontinent, loses value. For these and other reasons, a much older date for the Veda is foundational to the Indigenous Aryanist position; if by contrast, the oldest strata of the gveda cannot be far removed from the conventionally accepted date of 1200 or 1500 B.C.E. , then the Indigenous Aryanist case loses cogency. The chapter examines the dating of Proto-Indo-European first, before going on to look at the dating of the Veda itself, paying special attention to astronomy and its bearing on Vedic chronology. The author concludes that none of the evidence presented so far in the book convincingly settles the debate, and that the only evidence that could do this with any degree of certainty would be the decipherment of the script from the Indus Valley civilization. (The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture, Bryant, Edwin Lecturer in Indology, Committee for the Study of Religion, Harvard University, 2001)
The Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (or BMAC, also known as the Oxus civilization) is the modern archaeological designation for a Bronze Age culture of Central Asia, dated to ca. 2200–1700 BC, located in present day Turkmenistan, northern Afghanistan, southern Uzbekistan and western Tajikistan, centered on the upper Amu Darya (Oxus). Its sites were discovered and named by the Soviet archaeologist Viktor Sarianidi (1976). Bactria was the Greek name for the area of Bactra (modern Balkh), in what is now northern Afghanistan, and Margiana was the Greek name for the Persian satrapy of Margu, the capital of which was Merv, in today's Turkmenistan.
Radiocarbon dating suggests dating the complex to the last century of the 3rd millennium and the first quarter of the 2nd millennium BC. Geographically, the Bactria-Margiana complex spans a wide area from southeastern Iran to Balochistan and Afghanistan. Possibly the archaeologically unexplored terrain of Baluchistan and Afghanistan holds the heartland of the complex (see Lamberg-Karlovsky 2002). BMAC materials such as seals have been found in the Indus civilisation, on the Iranian plateau, and in the Persian Gulf. The inhabitants of the BMAC were sedentary people who practised irrigation farming of wheat and barley. There has been interaction with the nomadic people of the contemporary Andronovo culture of the steppe to the north, as the findings of steppe pottery in the BMAC indicate. With their impressive material culture including monumental architecture, bronze tools, ceramics, horse chariots and jewellery of semiprecious stones, the complex exhibits many of the hallmarks of civilization.
The discovery of a single tiny stone seal with geometric markings from a BMAC site in Turkmenistan in 2001 led some to claim that the Bactria-Margiana complex had also developed writing, and thus may indeed be considered a literate civilization. It is not clear however if the markings represent a true writing system as opposed to isolated pictographs.V. Mair (2001) has shown that the Chinese-like signs are indeed parallel to Chinese inscriptions used some 2500 years later in Xinjiang. The tiny seal has been dislocated down from its original, much later layer. Nevertheless, the BMAC seals contain motifs and even material that are distinctive from seals of Syro-Anatolia, Mesopotamia, the Persian Gulf, showing they form a type not derived from any other region. Sarianidi himself advocates identifying the complex as Indo-Iranian, going as far as to identify evidence of proto-Zoroastrian objects and rituals. James P. Mallory argues
"The geographic location of the BMAC ... conforms, it is argued, with the historical situation of the Da(h)a and Parnoi mentioned in Greek and Latin sources, which have, in turn, been identified with the Dasas, Dasyus, and Panis of the Rig Veda who were defeated by the Vedic Arya." (EIEC, p. 73).
EIEC or Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture is an encyclopedia of Indo-European studies and the Proto-Indo-Europeans. The encyclopedia was edited by J. P. Mallory and Douglas Q. Adams and published in 1997 by Fitzroy Dearborn. Similarly, he argues that the design of the BMAC forts "matches the description of the fortified sites depicted in the Vedas" and mentions evidence for the presence of the soma-cult. The archaeological record is however inconclusive with regard to a migration of Indo-Aryans or Indo-Iranians to the BMAC from east i.e, India.
Moreover, cultural links between the BMAC and the Indus Valley can also be explained by reciprocal cultural influences uniting the two cultures, or by the transfer of luxury or commercial goods. (Fussman, G.; Kellens, J.; Francfort, H.-P.; Tremblay, X. 2005)
The Indo-Iranian substratum
As argued by Michael Witzel (1999), (2003) and Alexander Lubotsky, there is a pre-Indo-European substratum in proto-Indo-Iranian which can be more plausibly identified with the original language (or languages) of the BMAC, which was, then, eventually given up by the locals in favour of proto-Indo-Iranian. Moreover, he points out a number of words apparently borrowed from the same language, which, however, are only attested in Indic. Provided this is not an accident of attestation, it may mean that the area where the language (or language family) in question was spoken included at least Gandhara as well, if not the Indus Valley also. This would fit the archaeological evidence mentioned above, pointing to a connection of the BMAC to these areas. Considering that the BMAC is suspected to extend into Afghanistan and Baluchistan, these areas may be included as well. The assumed Indo-Iranian substratum, then, is potentially relevant to the question about the language of the Indus Valley Civilization, as well. However, some BMAC words have now also been found in Tocharian (G. Pinault 2003), which renders a wide- spread BMAC language, from Xinjiang to the Panjab and points to cultural influence.
Iranian Avesta
The religious practices depicted in the Rgveda and those depicted in the Avesta, the central religious text of Zoroastrianism—the ancient Iranian faith founded by the prophet Zarathustra—have in common the deity Mitra, priests called hot in the Rgveda and zaotar in the Avesta, and the use of a hallucinogenic compound that the Rgveda calls soma and the Avesta haoma. However, the Indo-Aryan deva 'god' is cognate with the Iranian daēva 'demon'. Similarly, the Indo-Aryan asura 'name of a particular group of gods' (later on, 'demon') is cognate with the Iranian ahura 'lord, god,' which older authors such as Burrow explained as a reflection of religious rivalry between Indo-Aryans and Iranians. Two alternative dates for Zarathustra can be found in Greek sources: 5000 years before the Trojan War, i.e. 6000 BC. Most linguists such as Burrow argue that the strong similarity between the Avestan language of the Gāthās—the oldest part of the Avesta—and the Vedic Sanskrit of the Rgveda could also indicate the date of the Rigveda. There is mention in the Avesta of Airyanəm Vaējah, one of the '16 the lands of the Aryans' as well as Zarathustra himself. Gnoli's interpretation of geographic references in the Avesta situates the Airyanem Vaejah in the Hindu Kush. For similar reasons, Boyce excludes places north of the Syr Darya and western Iranian places. With some reservations, Skjaervo concurs that the evidence of the Avestan texts makes it impossible to avoid the conclusion that they were composed somewhere in northeastern Iran. Witzel points to the central Afghan highlands. (Mallory & Mair 2000, Burrow, as cited in Mallory 1989, Boyce and Gnoli, as cited in Bryant 2001)
The Out of India theory (OIT, also called the Indian Urheimat Theory) is the proposition that the Indo-European language family originated in the Indian subcontinent and spread to the remainder of the Indo-European region through a series of migrations. A notable proponent was Friedrich Schlegel writing in 1809.
The Out of India theory (OIT, also called the Indian Urheimat Theory) is the proposition that the Indo-European language family originated in the Indian subcontinent and spread to the remainder of the Indo-European region through a series of migrations. A notable proponent was Friedrich Schlegel writing in 1809.
Mitanni
The earliest written evidence for an Indo-Aryan language is found not in India, but in northern Syria in Hittite records regarding one of their neighbors, the Hurrian-speaking Mitanni. In a treaty with the Hittites, the king of Mitanni, after swearing by a series of Hurrian gods, swears by the gods Mitrašil, Uruvanaššil, Indara, and Našatianna, who correspond to the Vedic gods Mitra, Varuṇa, Indra, and Nāsatya. Contemporary equestrian terminology, as recorded in a horse-training manual whose author is identified as "Kikkuli the Mitannian," contains Indo-Aryan loanwords. The personal names and gods of the Mitanni aristocracy also bear traces of Indo-Aryan. Because of this association of Indo-Aryan with horsemanship and the Mitanni aristocracy, it is generally presumed that, after superimposing themselves as rulers on a native Hurrian-speaking population about the 15th-16th centuries BC, Indo-Aryan charioteers were absorbed into the local population and adopted the Hurrian language. Brentjes (as cited in Bryant 2001:137) argues that there is not a single cultural element of central Asian, eastern European, or Caucasian origin in the Mitannian area and associates with an Indo-Aryan presence the peacock motif found in the Middle East from before 1600 BC and quite likely from before 2100 BC. However, Indo-Aryans of Mitanni may came from the Indian subcontinent which the presence of some BMAC loan words in Mitanni testify. (Witzel 2003).
Rigvedic reference to migration
There is no explicit mention of an outward or inward migration in the Rigveda. Kazanas interpretes a mythological passage, RV 7.6.3, as: Agni turned the godless and the Dasyus westward, and not southward, as would be required by the Aryan Invasion Theory to India. (Kazanas, A new date for the Rgveda, p.11). Talageri speculates that some of the tribes that fought against Sudas on the banks of the Parusni River during the Dasarajna battle have maybe migrated to western countries in later times, as they are possibly connected with some Iranian peoples e.g. the Pakthas, Bhalanas. (MacDonnel and Keith, Vedic Index, 1912; Talageri 2000)
Just like the Avesta does not mention an external homeland of the Zoroastrians, the Rigveda does not explicitly refer to an external homeland or to a migration. (R. C. Majumdar and A. D. Pusalker (editors): The history and culture of the Indian people. Volume I, The Vedic age. Bombay : Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan 1951, p.220 & Cardona, George - The Indo-Aryan languages, Routledge Curzon; 2002). Later texts than the Rigveda (such as the Brahmanas, the Mahabharata, Ramayana and the Puranas) are more centered in the Ganges region. This shift from the Punjab to the Gangetic plain continues the Rigvedic tendency of eastward expansion, but does of course not imply an origin beyond the Indus watershed. Koenraad Elst states that "The status question is still, more than ever, that the Vedic corpus provides no reference to an immigration of the so-called Vedic Aryans from Central Asia" (The Vedic Evidence).
Just like the Avesta does not mention an external homeland of the Zoroastrians, the Rigveda does not explicitly refer to an external homeland or to a migration. (R. C. Majumdar and A. D. Pusalker (editors): The history and culture of the Indian people. Volume I, The Vedic age. Bombay : Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan 1951, p.220 & Cardona, George - The Indo-Aryan languages, Routledge Curzon; 2002). Later texts than the Rigveda (such as the Brahmanas, the Mahabharata, Ramayana and the Puranas) are more centered in the Ganges region. This shift from the Punjab to the Gangetic plain continues the Rigvedic tendency of eastward expansion, but does of course not imply an origin beyond the Indus watershed. Koenraad Elst states that "The status question is still, more than ever, that the Vedic corpus provides no reference to an immigration of the so-called Vedic Aryans from Central Asia" (The Vedic Evidence).
Other Hindu texts
Some Indologists have noted that "there is no textual evidence in the early literary traditions unambiguously showing a trace" of an Indo-Aryan migration. Texts like the Puranas and Mahabharata belong to a later period than the Rigveda, making their evidence less than sufficient to be used for or against the Indo-Aryan migration theory. Later Vedic texts show a shift of location from the Panjab to the East: according to the Yajur Veda, Yajnavalkya (one of the Vedic Seers) lived in the eastern region of Mithila. Aitareya Brahmana 33.6.1. records that Vishvamitra's sons migrated to the north, and in Shatapatha Brahmana 1:2:4:10 the Asuras were driven to the northwest. (Elst 1999, with reference to L.N. Renu). In Bhagavata Purana (VIII.24.13), Manu was said to be a king from Dravida. In the legend of the flood he stranded with his ship in Northwestern India or the Himalayas. (Satapatha Brahmana, Atharva Veda)
The Vedic land e.g. Brahmavarta is located in west of North India or Aryavarta, between the Sarasvati and Drsadvati River, according to Hindu texts. The Chautang river is a seasonal river in the state of Haryana, India. Some believe it to be remnant of the Drsadvati River mentioned in Vedas and the Mahabharata. (RV 3.23.4). In the Mahabharata Udyoga Parva (108), the East meaning India is described as the homeland of the Vedic culture, where "the divine Creator of the universe first sang the Vedas." (Shrikant G. Talageri, 1993, The Aryan Invasion Theory, A Reappraisal). The legends of Ikshvaku, Sumati and other Hindu legends may have their origin in South-East Asia as Elst 1999, chapter 5 points out with reference to Bernard Sergent.
The Vedic land e.g. Brahmavarta is located in west of North India or Aryavarta, between the Sarasvati and Drsadvati River, according to Hindu texts. The Chautang river is a seasonal river in the state of Haryana, India. Some believe it to be remnant of the Drsadvati River mentioned in Vedas and the Mahabharata. (RV 3.23.4). In the Mahabharata Udyoga Parva (108), the East meaning India is described as the homeland of the Vedic culture, where "the divine Creator of the universe first sang the Vedas." (Shrikant G. Talageri, 1993, The Aryan Invasion Theory, A Reappraisal). The legends of Ikshvaku, Sumati and other Hindu legends may have their origin in South-East Asia as Elst 1999, chapter 5 points out with reference to Bernard Sergent.
Rigvedic society as pastoral society
Fortifications (púr), mostly made of mud and wood (palisades) are mentioned in the Rigveda mainly as the abode of hostile peoples, while the Aryan tribes live in víś, a term translated as "settlement, homestead, house, dwelling", but also "community, tribe, troops". Indra in particular is described as destroyer of fortifications, e.g. RV 4.30.20ab:
satám asmanmáyinaam / purām índro ví asiyat
"Indra overthrew a hundred fortresses of stone."
However, according to Gupta (as quoted in Bryant 2001:190), "ancient civilizations had both the components, the village and the city, and numerically villages were many times more than the cities. If the Vedic literature reflects primarily the village life and not the urban life, it does not at all surprise us.". Gregory Possehl (as cited in Bryant 2001:195) argued that the "extraordinary empty spaces between the Harappan settlement clusters" indicates that pastoralists may have "formed the bulk of the population during Harappan times". The Rigveda is seen by some as containing phrases referring to elements of an urban civilization, other than the mere viewpoint of an invader aiming at sacking the fortresses. For example, Indra is compared to the lord of a fortification (pūrpatis) in RV 1.173.10, while quotations such as a ship with a hundred oars in 1.116 and metal forts (puras ayasis) in 10.101.8 also occur.
satám asmanmáyinaam / purām índro ví asiyat
"Indra overthrew a hundred fortresses of stone."
However, according to Gupta (as quoted in Bryant 2001:190), "ancient civilizations had both the components, the village and the city, and numerically villages were many times more than the cities. If the Vedic literature reflects primarily the village life and not the urban life, it does not at all surprise us.". Gregory Possehl (as cited in Bryant 2001:195) argued that the "extraordinary empty spaces between the Harappan settlement clusters" indicates that pastoralists may have "formed the bulk of the population during Harappan times". The Rigveda is seen by some as containing phrases referring to elements of an urban civilization, other than the mere viewpoint of an invader aiming at sacking the fortresses. For example, Indra is compared to the lord of a fortification (pūrpatis) in RV 1.173.10, while quotations such as a ship with a hundred oars in 1.116 and metal forts (puras ayasis) in 10.101.8 also occur.
Decipherment of Indus Script Based on Sanskrit
‘Grandmother of the Vedic language’
Dr. Madhusudan Mishra was a lecturer in Sanskrit in Germany and India before joining the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan which he served until his retirement. He has written a number of books on various aspects of the Sanskrit language. His work on the Indus script. From Indus to Sanskrit is in three parts (1996-98). The following summary is based on Part III of the book, which presents a revised model of his decipherment of the Indus Script. (Indian History Congress, Sixty – Second Session, held at Bhopal from 28-30 December 2001 published in ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF VEDIC STUDIES (EJVS) Vol. 8 (2002) issue 1, March 8)
According to Mishra, the language of the Indus inscriptions is Pre-Vedic Sanskrit described by him as the ‘grandmother of the Vedic language’. The special characteristic of the Indus-Sanskrit is that it belongs to the ‘isolating’ type consisting of monosyllabic words. Sanskrit is then supposed to have passed through the agglutinative stage (which is not attested) before reaching the final inflectional stage known from the Vedic language. Indus script too evolved through three successive stages, written at first with animal figures, then with geometric forms and finally with numeral signs, even though all the three phases are present simultaneously in the extant Indus texts. Mishra’s study of the concordance of the Indus texts leads to the conclusion that each Indus sign represents a complete word and that stable pairs and triplets of signs build up phrases or clauses. The ligatured signs represent compound words. The word-signs are strung together loosely in short sentences with very little or no grammar.
Mishra then proceeds to match the features of the Indus inscriptions as determined by structural analysis with those of the ‘isolating’ type of Sanskrit. Each Indus sign is regarded as an open syllable of the consonant-vowel (CV) type. It is important to note that Mishra does not determine the phonetic values but the meanings of the monosyllabic word-signs. The procedure followed by him is to pick out monosyllabic words (of CV type) referring to animals or objects from the Sanskrit lexicons and apply those values to the Indus signs identified by him as representing the animals or objects. For example, the sign looking like an ant is identified with ka ‘ant’, the sign depicting a circle is ca ‘moon’, the ‘hill’ sign is da etc. Mishra follows a different procedure when dealing with the numerical signs. The transparent sequence of the numerals determined by the number of strokes enables him to identify them (after some re-shuffling) with the Mahesvara-sutras in Panini’s grammar. Based on his readings, Mishra identifies the contents of the Indus inscriptions with a ‘rudimentary form’ of what is elaborated in the Vedic and later samhitas. The Indus inscriptions are also identified as written in metrical form, mostly in the Gayatri and Anushtubh meters. One example will suffice; the longest Indus text with 26 signs, read in monosyllabic Sanskrit, yields the following meaning:
(when the universe was to come into being) the unsteady star (sun) was bright (or produced light).
(Firstly) the sky was born. It was (rather) conceived through meditation (that the sky has been
born). Then the river flowed. The sun shone brightly. This is the truth to know. (Then the
earthly) fire burnt(=came into being). Now, indeed, the hot sun is shining.
According to Mishra, some of the ideas in this text are reflected in the ‘hymn to creation’ in the Rigveda (RV.10.12). Mishra’s own comment on his readings is worth quoting: “These sentences often appear ridiculous … but the absence of the real context makes them unbelievable”.
Dr. Madhusudan Mishra was a lecturer in Sanskrit in Germany and India before joining the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan which he served until his retirement. He has written a number of books on various aspects of the Sanskrit language. His work on the Indus script. From Indus to Sanskrit is in three parts (1996-98). The following summary is based on Part III of the book, which presents a revised model of his decipherment of the Indus Script. (Indian History Congress, Sixty – Second Session, held at Bhopal from 28-30 December 2001 published in ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF VEDIC STUDIES (EJVS) Vol. 8 (2002) issue 1, March 8)
According to Mishra, the language of the Indus inscriptions is Pre-Vedic Sanskrit described by him as the ‘grandmother of the Vedic language’. The special characteristic of the Indus-Sanskrit is that it belongs to the ‘isolating’ type consisting of monosyllabic words. Sanskrit is then supposed to have passed through the agglutinative stage (which is not attested) before reaching the final inflectional stage known from the Vedic language. Indus script too evolved through three successive stages, written at first with animal figures, then with geometric forms and finally with numeral signs, even though all the three phases are present simultaneously in the extant Indus texts. Mishra’s study of the concordance of the Indus texts leads to the conclusion that each Indus sign represents a complete word and that stable pairs and triplets of signs build up phrases or clauses. The ligatured signs represent compound words. The word-signs are strung together loosely in short sentences with very little or no grammar.
Mishra then proceeds to match the features of the Indus inscriptions as determined by structural analysis with those of the ‘isolating’ type of Sanskrit. Each Indus sign is regarded as an open syllable of the consonant-vowel (CV) type. It is important to note that Mishra does not determine the phonetic values but the meanings of the monosyllabic word-signs. The procedure followed by him is to pick out monosyllabic words (of CV type) referring to animals or objects from the Sanskrit lexicons and apply those values to the Indus signs identified by him as representing the animals or objects. For example, the sign looking like an ant is identified with ka ‘ant’, the sign depicting a circle is ca ‘moon’, the ‘hill’ sign is da etc. Mishra follows a different procedure when dealing with the numerical signs. The transparent sequence of the numerals determined by the number of strokes enables him to identify them (after some re-shuffling) with the Mahesvara-sutras in Panini’s grammar. Based on his readings, Mishra identifies the contents of the Indus inscriptions with a ‘rudimentary form’ of what is elaborated in the Vedic and later samhitas. The Indus inscriptions are also identified as written in metrical form, mostly in the Gayatri and Anushtubh meters. One example will suffice; the longest Indus text with 26 signs, read in monosyllabic Sanskrit, yields the following meaning:
(when the universe was to come into being) the unsteady star (sun) was bright (or produced light).
(Firstly) the sky was born. It was (rather) conceived through meditation (that the sky has been
born). Then the river flowed. The sun shone brightly. This is the truth to know. (Then the
earthly) fire burnt(=came into being). Now, indeed, the hot sun is shining.
According to Mishra, some of the ideas in this text are reflected in the ‘hymn to creation’ in the Rigveda (RV.10.12). Mishra’s own comment on his readings is worth quoting: “These sentences often appear ridiculous … but the absence of the real context makes them unbelievable”.
Physical anthropology
Clustering analysis from Rosenberg (2006), shows no distinctive genetic cluster compositions among Indo-Aryan populations in India, though there is a slight change (nothing in comparison to Europeans) in the specific Indo-Aryan populations of the Punjab, Sindh and Kashmir regions located in the north-west of South Asia which may be due to settlement of invaders even after Vedic age. Kenneth A.R. Kennedy, a U.S. expert who has extensively studied such skeletal remains, observes, "Biological anthropologists remain unable to lend support to any of the theories concerning an Aryan biological or demographic entity." (Michel Danino. The Indus-Sarasvati Civilization and its Bearing on the Aryan Question)
Chaubey et al. (2007) find that most of the India-specific mtDNA haplogroups show coalescent times of 40 to 60 millennia ago. Sahoo et al. (2006) states that "there is general agreement that Indian caste and tribal populations share a common late Pleistocene maternal ancestry in India". It is not necessary, based on the current evidence, to look beyond South Asia for the origins of the paternal heritage of the majority of Indians at the time of the onset of settled agriculture. The perennial concept of people, language, and agriculture arriving to India together through the northwest corridor does not hold up to close scrutiny. Recent claims for a linkage of haplogroups J2, L, R1a, and R2 with a contemporaneous origin for the majority of the Indian castes' paternal lineages from outside the subcontinent are rejected, although our findings do support a local origin of haplogroups F* and H. Of the others, only J2 indicates an unambiguous recent external contribution, from West Asia rather than Central Asia (Due to medieval period invaders - Sahoo, Sanghamitra, et al. (January 2006). "A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: Evaluating demic diffusion scenarios"). A 2002-03 study by T. Kivisild et al. concluded that the "Indian tribal and caste populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians and have received limited gene flow from external regions since the Holocene." A 2006 genetic study by the National Institute of Biologicals in India, testing a sample of men from 32 tribal and 45 caste groups, concluded that the Indians have acquired very few genes from Indo-European speaking migrants if any. Now Sanskrit being the oldest Indo-European or Aryan langauge the question of Aryan invasion in India do not arise at all. (American Journal of Human Genetics - February 2003). Kennedy (as cited in Bryant 2001:230), who examined 300 skeletons from the Indus Valley civilization, concludes that the ancient Harappans “are not markedly different in their skeletal biology from the present-day inhabitants of Northwestern India and Pakistan”. The craniometric variables of prehistoric and living South Asians also showed an "obvious separation" from the prehistoric people of the Iranian plateau (Indo-Iranians) and western Asia (Semitic people). Furthermore, the results of craniometric variation from Indus Valley sites indicate "significant separation" of Moenjodaro from Harappa and the others. Possibly as several races like now in India co-existed in this Sarasvati-Indus civilization. (Kennedy. "Have Aryans been identified in the prehistoric skeletal record from South Asia? Biological anthropology and concepts of ancient races", in Erdosy (1995), at p. 49)
Kenoyer (as quoted in Bryant 2001:231) states that "there was an overlap between Late Harappan and post-Harappan communities...with no biological evidence for major new populations." Kennedy (in Erdosy 1995:54) concluded, "there is no evidence of demographic disruptions in the north-western sector of the subcontinent during and immediately after the decline of the Harappan culture. If Vedic Aryans were a biological entity represented by the skeletons from Timargarha, then their biological features of cranial and dental anatomy were not distinct to a marked degree from what we encountered in the ancient Harappans.” Comparing the Harappan and Gandhara cultures, Kennedy (in Erdosy 1995:49) remarks that: “Our multivariate approach does not define the biological identity of an ancient Aryan population, but it does indicate that the Indus Valley and Gandhara peoples shared a number of craniometric, odontometric and discrete traits that point to a high degree of biological affinity.” Hence chances that Caucasians came from Caspauin Sea region or from Central Asia (Turkic homeland) as Aryans to India are bleak.Hemphill and Christensen (as cited in Elst 1999) report on their study of the migration of genetic traits: "Gene flow from Bactria occurs much later, and does not impact Indus Valley gene pools until the dawn of the Christian era." In a more recent study, Hemphill concludes that "the data provide no support for any model of massive migration and gene flow between the oases of Bactria and the Indus Valley. Rather, patterns of phonetic affinity best conform to a pattern of long-standing, but low-level bidirectional mutual exchange. However Kivisild 2003a; Kivisild 2003b have revealed that a high frequency of haplogroup 3 (R1a1) occurs in about half of the male population of Northwestern India and is also frequent in Western Bengal. These results, together with the fact that haplogroup 3 is much less frequent in Iran and Anatolia than it is in India, indicates that haplogroup 3 found among high caste Telugus did not necessarily originate from Eastern Europeans. Kivisild et al. (2003) "suggests that southern and western Asia might be the source of this haplogroup". Studies of Indian scholars showed the R1a lineage forms around 35–45% among all the castes in North Indian population (Namita Mukherjee et al. 2001) and the high frequency of R1a1 present in the indigenous Chenchu and Badaga tribal Adivasis of south India making the association with the Brahmin caste. However, a model involving population flow from Southern Asia into Central Asia during Paleolithic interglacial periods with a subsequent R1a1-mediated Neolithic migration of Indo-European-speaking pastoralists back into Southern Asia would also be consistent with these data.
Chaubey et al. (2007) find that most of the India-specific mtDNA haplogroups show coalescent times of 40 to 60 millennia ago. Sahoo et al. (2006) states that "there is general agreement that Indian caste and tribal populations share a common late Pleistocene maternal ancestry in India". It is not necessary, based on the current evidence, to look beyond South Asia for the origins of the paternal heritage of the majority of Indians at the time of the onset of settled agriculture. The perennial concept of people, language, and agriculture arriving to India together through the northwest corridor does not hold up to close scrutiny. Recent claims for a linkage of haplogroups J2, L, R1a, and R2 with a contemporaneous origin for the majority of the Indian castes' paternal lineages from outside the subcontinent are rejected, although our findings do support a local origin of haplogroups F* and H. Of the others, only J2 indicates an unambiguous recent external contribution, from West Asia rather than Central Asia (Due to medieval period invaders - Sahoo, Sanghamitra, et al. (January 2006). "A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: Evaluating demic diffusion scenarios"). A 2002-03 study by T. Kivisild et al. concluded that the "Indian tribal and caste populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians and have received limited gene flow from external regions since the Holocene." A 2006 genetic study by the National Institute of Biologicals in India, testing a sample of men from 32 tribal and 45 caste groups, concluded that the Indians have acquired very few genes from Indo-European speaking migrants if any. Now Sanskrit being the oldest Indo-European or Aryan langauge the question of Aryan invasion in India do not arise at all. (American Journal of Human Genetics - February 2003). Kennedy (as cited in Bryant 2001:230), who examined 300 skeletons from the Indus Valley civilization, concludes that the ancient Harappans “are not markedly different in their skeletal biology from the present-day inhabitants of Northwestern India and Pakistan”. The craniometric variables of prehistoric and living South Asians also showed an "obvious separation" from the prehistoric people of the Iranian plateau (Indo-Iranians) and western Asia (Semitic people). Furthermore, the results of craniometric variation from Indus Valley sites indicate "significant separation" of Moenjodaro from Harappa and the others. Possibly as several races like now in India co-existed in this Sarasvati-Indus civilization. (Kennedy. "Have Aryans been identified in the prehistoric skeletal record from South Asia? Biological anthropology and concepts of ancient races", in Erdosy (1995), at p. 49)
Kenoyer (as quoted in Bryant 2001:231) states that "there was an overlap between Late Harappan and post-Harappan communities...with no biological evidence for major new populations." Kennedy (in Erdosy 1995:54) concluded, "there is no evidence of demographic disruptions in the north-western sector of the subcontinent during and immediately after the decline of the Harappan culture. If Vedic Aryans were a biological entity represented by the skeletons from Timargarha, then their biological features of cranial and dental anatomy were not distinct to a marked degree from what we encountered in the ancient Harappans.” Comparing the Harappan and Gandhara cultures, Kennedy (in Erdosy 1995:49) remarks that: “Our multivariate approach does not define the biological identity of an ancient Aryan population, but it does indicate that the Indus Valley and Gandhara peoples shared a number of craniometric, odontometric and discrete traits that point to a high degree of biological affinity.” Hence chances that Caucasians came from Caspauin Sea region or from Central Asia (Turkic homeland) as Aryans to India are bleak.Hemphill and Christensen (as cited in Elst 1999) report on their study of the migration of genetic traits: "Gene flow from Bactria occurs much later, and does not impact Indus Valley gene pools until the dawn of the Christian era." In a more recent study, Hemphill concludes that "the data provide no support for any model of massive migration and gene flow between the oases of Bactria and the Indus Valley. Rather, patterns of phonetic affinity best conform to a pattern of long-standing, but low-level bidirectional mutual exchange. However Kivisild 2003a; Kivisild 2003b have revealed that a high frequency of haplogroup 3 (R1a1) occurs in about half of the male population of Northwestern India and is also frequent in Western Bengal. These results, together with the fact that haplogroup 3 is much less frequent in Iran and Anatolia than it is in India, indicates that haplogroup 3 found among high caste Telugus did not necessarily originate from Eastern Europeans. Kivisild et al. (2003) "suggests that southern and western Asia might be the source of this haplogroup". Studies of Indian scholars showed the R1a lineage forms around 35–45% among all the castes in North Indian population (Namita Mukherjee et al. 2001) and the high frequency of R1a1 present in the indigenous Chenchu and Badaga tribal Adivasis of south India making the association with the Brahmin caste. However, a model involving population flow from Southern Asia into Central Asia during Paleolithic interglacial periods with a subsequent R1a1-mediated Neolithic migration of Indo-European-speaking pastoralists back into Southern Asia would also be consistent with these data.
